Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Christopher Monsour
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's nothing wrong with being ugly, either, but it's unlikely to be taken as a compliment if you imply someone is ugly…
Aug. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One problem with vetting via the rumor mill is that the rumor mill will shut down since the rumor-mongers will end up being sued.
Aug. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard, “clear and convincing evidence” of cheating wouldn't be enough for you?
Aug. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But, Ed, you were the one who implied that they are “spirits from the vasty deep”. Good idea not to paraphrase Shakespeare if you don't know the context. :)
Aug. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you missed Ed's point. I don't think he meant that the money would necessarily be spent on bridge.
Aug. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If both pairs sit the same direction, the result is that no boards have been completed prior to time. OK, easy to see that neither side should get any VPs. But what if they noticed part-way through and were able to play 3 boards properly? Those get scored to get IMP results for those three boards and then what? Are they supposed to get -3 IMPs for each team for each board they didn't play? But if they reported the actual IMP result from the 3 boards they were able to play and didn't mention that it was only for three boards–well, the director taking the scores usually doesn't care if your match lost a board. Would you have done anything dishonest not to mention that didn't get to 4 boards? Assume that you called the director when you noticed the alignment issue and he helped you fix that but gave you no further instructions.
Aug. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nice post. One small quibble on page 1. Technically, 4 is not one of the options for the case “if you aren't placing the contract now”.
Aug. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it's obvious from Kit's example why the responses to preempt keycard are supposed to start with zero.
Aug. 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In most partnerships this is trumped by the principle that if opener makes a jump bid, the only way responder can avoid game is to pass.
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How I would take these: 4 forcing and natural in both sequences, but suit-setting only in sequence 2, and therefore 4 is passable in sequence 1. No bid has shown a diamond control in either sequence; 3 in sequence 1 is an attempt to find the right strain.
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even the second round jump to 2NT can be forcing if you use a weakness signal a la Kaplan. For example, after 1-1-1M-, you can preference to 2 with weak hands that would otherwise rebid 1NT and reserve 1NT for hands with 9-11. After 1m-1-1, you can do the opposite–rebid 1NT with 5-8 even with support for m, and let the preference to 2m promise 9-11. (This is in the context of a weak NT system.) Of course, in the latter case, one wants FSF followed by 2NT to be invitational only–easy enough for 1-1-1-2-2-2NT, but not quite as pleasant after 1-1-1-2-3-?
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pavlicek's old partner Root wrote about this style in the 80s and 90s, as did Edgar Kaplan in the 60s and 70s. I frankly never understood why it fell out of fashion.
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You should hope the moderators haven't read _Henry IV_. It's not a flattering reference for them.
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only youth bridge. :)
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ben, I admit I don't know the details, which is why I phrased it as a question (which I was hoping Roy knew the answer to). It may simply have been applied to expulsions and not so much by rule as upon application for readmission, that one of the conditions of readmission was that the individual not represent the US in international competition. I know I read about it on this site, so I'm hoping someone else can provide more detail.
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A couple of modifications: If you are worried about barring peope from international play for minor infractions, you could say “no players suspended for more than 90 days…” More importantly, the ban should be on representing any country in international competition, not merely his current one.
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If non-bridge related comments are not allowed, may I call on the moderators to delete all comments that contain the word “Olympics”? :)
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Resolved, then. Bridge should become part of the Paralympics.
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hmm, if we base this on wealth, couldn't we get Monaco to foot most of the bill?
Aug. 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, Ed. It's fine to have a standard. It's silly to uphold that standard when the alternative is such an improvement. Not allowing the WBF cards would be like not allowing bidding boxes. (OK, so yes, there is something the WBF got right.)
Aug. 19, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top